1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two months and by imprisonment for not more than eight months for the crimes of No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2...

Punishment of the crime

On August 21, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the obstruction of performance of official duties at the Changwon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2013.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. The Defendant violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (mariju) around 13:00 on April 4, 2013, when she adhered to the first tobacco smoke on the street before the frequency of the trade name in the Hong-dong, Kimhae-si, and then smoked by inserting about 0.2g of marijuana on the spot and attaching a fire to the smoke.

2. Around 23:00 on July 1, 2014, the Defendant administered approximately 0.02 g of psychotropic drugs, a psychotropic drug, to a coffee, in a toilet located in the D Hospital in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter referred to as “clopon”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Seizure records, replys to requests for appraisal, investigation reports (training of phiphonephones as a result of shotphones) and written appraisal;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, summary information of case, and application of court rulings and other statutes;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Articles 4 (1), and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) (the point of a scopon medication) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 61 (1) 4 (a), and Article 3 subparagraph 10 (the point of a smoking marijuana) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and the choice of imprisonment for the crime, respectively;

2. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

3. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. is not only that the defendant has been punished several times as a drug crime, but also that the defendant was under the suspension of execution due to his previous convictions, and that the defendant committed the second crime in the decision of the investigative agency even though he had been under investigation with regard to the crime of subparagraph 1 of the decision, which

However, it shall be considered in favor of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, the fact that the defendant's health is not good, and other decisions.